Relied-Upon Documents vs Un-Relied Material in a PMLA Prosecution: What the Accused Should Inspect Before: Delhi Procedure and Defence Guide

Complaint filed does not mean the defence file is trial-ready. Before charge, every relied-upon document, Section 50 statement, supplementary filing, seized-record copy and un-relied-material list should be audited for completeness, legibility and evidentiary significance.

Research and professional guidance by

Legally reviewed and updated: 14 August 2026

Direct Answer: What Should the Accused Inspect Before Charge?

Before the Special Court proceeds to framing of charge in a PMLA prosecution, the defence should not merely confirm that “documents have been received”.

It should verify at least:

1. the complete prosecution complaint;
2. every document actually produced before the Special Court with that complaint;
3. Section 50 statements produced before the Court;
4. documents subsequently produced by ED up to the date of cognizance;
5. every supplementary complaint and its supporting documents;
6. the list identifying statements, documents, material objects and exhibits not relied upon by ED;
7. true copies of records/documents seized from the accused or the accused's premises where the separate PMLA copy entitlement applies;
8. missing, illegible, incomplete or incorrectly paginated pages;
9. digital evidence in an actually usable and identifiable form;
10. the Special Court record where discrepancies are suspected.

This distinction is now governed substantially by the Supreme Court's decision in Sarla Gupta & Another v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 INSC 645.

The Four-Bucket Document Model

BUCKET 1
DOCUMENTS PRODUCED WITH
PROSECUTION COMPLAINT
        ↓
COPY REQUIRED

BUCKET 2
DOCUMENTS / RECORDS
SEIZED FROM ACCUSED
        ↓
SECTION 21 / SARLA GUPTA
TRUE-COPY RIGHT
EVEN IF NOT RELIED UPON

BUCKET 3
OTHER UN-RELIED MATERIAL
IN ED CUSTODY
        ↓
LIST MUST BE FURNISHED
        ↓
COPY MAY BE SOUGHT
AT APPROPRIATE STAGE

BUCKET 4
EXCULPATORY / DEFENCE-HELPFUL
MATERIAL WITHIN BUCKET 2 OR 3
        ↓
IDENTIFY
PRESERVE
SEEK PRODUCTION
AT LEGALLY APPROPRIATE STAGE

Most disclosure disputes arise because these four categories are wrongly treated as one.

What Is a “Relied-Upon Document” in Practical PMLA Litigation?

Practitioners commonly use the expression “RUD” for a document relied upon by the prosecution.

However, after Sarla Gupta, the practical disclosure inquiry should not stop at ED's internal label.

Once cognizance has been taken, the accused must receive the documents that were produced before the Special Court with the complaint and the documents contemplated by the Supreme Court's directions.

ED cannot simply say:

“This document was filed with the complaint but we do not technically rely upon it, therefore we need not give you a copy.”

The Supreme Court rejected that approach.

What Must Accompany the PMLA Complaint after Cognizance?

The Supreme Court identified the following disclosure architecture after cognizance on a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) PMLA:

• copy of the complaint;
• statements, if any, recorded by the Special Judge from the complainant/witnesses before cognizance;
• documents, including copies of Section 50 statements, produced before the Special Court along with the complaint;
• documents produced subsequently by ED up to the date of cognizance;
• supplementary complaints;
• documents produced with supplementary complaints.

The defence should audit each category separately.

Do Not Trust the RUD Index Without Reconciliation

Create three parallel columns:

Complaint Reference	ED/RUD Index	Copy Actually Supplied
Para 74 – Bank Statement	RUD-21	Pages supplied?
Para 91 – Section 50 Statement	RUD-35	All pages + annexures?
Para 118 – WhatsApp Extraction	RUD-42	Complete extraction or selected screenshots?
Para 133 – Tally Ledger	RUD-51	Readable data / PDF / export?

A document repeatedly referred to in the complaint but absent from the supplied volumes should immediately be flagged.

Sarla Gupta: A Real Case of Thousands of Pages and Missing Documents

The facts before the Supreme Court are unusually instructive for economic-offence litigation.

The supplied material had been arranged into eight volumes containing approximately 3,535 pages.

The accused alleged, among other things:

• about 45 relied-upon documents had not been supplied;
• eight documents were illegible;
• certain pages were absent from the Court record;
• some page numbers were duplicated on different documents;
• certain documents were legible in the Court's file but illegible in the copies given to the accused.

This demonstrates why “3,535 pages supplied” is not the same as “complete disclosure achieved”.

The Pre-Charge Defect Matrix

Document	Problem	Prejudice	Relief
Section 50 statement	Page 7 missing	Answer sequence incomplete	Complete copy
Bank statement	Unreadable transaction narration	Fund-flow cannot be tested	Legible copy
WhatsApp extraction	Only selected screenshots	Conversation context missing	Complete relied extraction / identified source material
Agreement	Annexures absent	Commercial terms incomplete	Complete document
RUD index	Incorrect pagination	Charge preparation obstructed	Corrected index
Tally report	Image too blurred	Voucher cannot be reconciled	Readable export / soft copy

Illegible Copy Is Not Meaningful Disclosure

Where ED relies upon:

• handwritten figures;
• account numbers;
• signatures;
• bank narrations;
• dates;
• invoice descriptions;
• WhatsApp text;
• Tally voucher details;

a blurred photocopy can materially obstruct the defence.

The application should identify:

• RUD number;
• volume;
• page;
• exact illegible portion;
• why that portion matters.

Avoid the vague prayer:

“All documents are illegible.”

Inspect the Court File Where the Defence Copy Does Not Match

Sarla Gupta itself records a situation where certain documents were said to be legible in the Special Court file but illegible in the copies supplied to the accused.

That creates a simple diagnostic exercise:

COURT COPY
vs
DEFENCE COPY

Record:

• RUD number;
• Court-page number;
• defence-set page number;
• whether complete;
• whether legible;
• whether identical;
• whether annexures exist in both.

Where permitted by the Court's practice and order, inspection can establish precisely what is missing instead of generating an abstract disclosure dispute.

What If a Document Was Seized from the Accused but ED Does Not Rely on It?

This is where Section 21 PMLA becomes critical.

Under Section 21(2), the person from whom records were seized or frozen is entitled to obtain copies.

The Supreme Court held that the entitlement is a matter of right and applies to seized records even if ED does not rely upon those records in its prosecution complaint.

Therefore:

SEIZED FROM ACCUSED
+
NOT RELIED UPON
        ↓
DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN
“NO COPY”

True copies may be sought, and bulky material may be supplied electronically.

The Crucial Limitation: Copy Right ≠ Charge-Stage Reliance

Sarla Gupta simultaneously drew an important boundary.

Even where an accused obtains copies of seized un-relied records, that does not mean those records automatically become part of the material on which the accused may ordinarily rely when the Court considers framing of charge.

At the charge stage, the Supreme Court maintained the orthodox rule that the operative record ordinarily consists of the prosecution complaint/supplementary-complaint material produced before the Court.

Therefore keep separate:

ACCESS TO DOCUMENT

from

USE OF DOCUMENT AT CHARGE.

What Is the Accused Entitled to Know about Other Un-Relied Material?

The Supreme Court held that a copy of the list of statements, documents, material objects and exhibits not relied upon by the investigating officer must also be furnished to the accused.

The list matters because otherwise the accused may never know that potentially useful material exists.

A useful un-relied-material list should enable identification of:

• document;
• statement;
• material object;
• electronic device/data set;
• seizure/reference number;
• source/custodian where recorded;
• basic description.

Why the Un-Relied List Matters: Exculpatory Material May Be Hidden There

The Supreme Court's criminal-trial disclosure jurisprudence recognises the basic fairness problem: material held by investigators but not relied upon may sometimes:

• exculpate the accused;
• contradict a prosecution witness;
• show a lawful source;
• establish an alternative transaction explanation;
• undermine digital attribution;
• show another person controlled the account/device;
• help the defence in cross-examination.

That is why knowledge of the un-relied material is important even where copies are not immediately available at charge.

Exculpatory Material Is Not a Separate Label Applied by ED

ED's list may simply identify a document as:

“Ledger of XYZ Pvt. Ltd.”

The defence may discover that the ledger actually shows:

• a genuine pre-existing liability;
• a payment predating alleged proceeds of crime;
• a lawful invoice;
• a different beneficial recipient;
• a contradiction with a Section 50 statement.

Therefore “exculpatory” often describes the defence significance of the material—not an investigative category that will necessarily be marked as such.

Can the Accused Demand All Un-Relied Documents Before Charge?

In the ordinary course, no universal right to obtain every un-relied item merely for use at the framing-of-charge hearing was recognised by the Supreme Court.

Sarla Gupta states that at the framing-of-charge stage in a PMLA case, reliance can ordinarily be placed only on the material produced with the complaint or supplementary complaints.

The accused nevertheless has:

• the list of un-relied materials;
• the independent Section 21 copy right for qualifying records seized from the accused;
• later production remedies at the legally appropriate stage;
• a special bail-stage route discussed by the Supreme Court where Section 45 applies.

Section 94 BNSS / Former Section 91 CrPC: Production of Documents

Section 94 BNSS provides the current general process for compelling production of a document, electronic communication, communication device containing digital evidence or other thing considered necessary or desirable for an investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.

Sarla Gupta explains that an accused may seek production of un-relied material at the appropriate stage.

However, at charge, the ordinary rule remains restrictive because defence material itself is ordinarily not evaluated as the charge record.

The stage and purpose of the application therefore matter.

A Separate and Important Bail Exception

PMLA bail creates an unusual problem because Section 45 can impose an onerous burden upon the accused.

The Supreme Court therefore held that, at a bail hearing governed by Section 45(1)(ii), the accused can invoke the document-production jurisdiction to seek un-relied material.

If investigation or further investigation is still continuing, ED may object that disclosure would prejudice that investigation.

But the Court must examine that objection. The Supreme Court stated that the documents can be withheld on that basis only where the Court, after examining the material and recording reasons, is satisfied that disclosure may prejudice the ongoing investigation.

Once the investigation is complete, the particular ongoing-investigation objection identified by the Supreme Court is no longer available.

Section 50 Statements: Audit the Complete Statement, Not Selected Answers

Where Section 50 statements are produced before the Special Court, inspect:

• summons date;
• statement date;
• every page;
• continuation sheets;
• signatures;
• questions and answers;
• documents shown during examination;
• annexures;
• subsequent clarification/retraction, if any;
• other statements referring to the accused.

A prosecution quotation from paragraph 18 of a statement should always be read with paragraphs 1–17 and 19 onwards.

Supplementary Complaint Audit

Do not finish the disclosure exercise after the first prosecution complaint.

For every supplementary complaint create:

• filing date;
• new accused;
• new allegations;
• new witnesses;
• new Section 50 statements;
• new bank records;
• new digital data;
• new property transactions;
• new RUD index;
• new overlap with earlier RUDs.

Cross-reference all supplementary documents against the original complaint.

Digital Evidence: “Copy Supplied” Does Not Mean “Evidence Usable”

A modern PMLA prosecution may include:

• WhatsApp exports;
• email;
• phone extraction reports;
• cloud data;
• Tally;
• ERP;
• Excel files;
• server material;
• PDFs;
• audio/video;
• CD/DVD/pen-drive material.

For each digital RUD ask:

• What exactly is the relied-upon exhibit?
• Is it the complete extraction or a selected printout?
• What device/account is attributed?
• What file path or source is identified?
• Does the file actually open?
• Are attachments available?
• Is the surrounding conversation included?
• Is an electronic-evidence certificate relied upon?
• What integrity/hash material is relied upon, if any?

Un-Relied Digital Data Can Be More Important than Un-Relied Paper

Suppose ED relies upon 14 WhatsApp messages extracted from a phone containing 40,000 messages.

The surrounding material may potentially reveal:

• context;
• a different meaning of an abbreviation;
• messages before or after the selected extract;
• forwarded content;
• another user's access;
• commercial discussions consistent with the transaction;
• exculpatory conversations.

The legal entitlement to obtain or use the larger data set must be analysed according to:

• whether the data was seized from the accused;
• whether it forms part of the Court-produced material;
• whether it appears on the un-relied list;
• the procedural stage;
• the production relief sought.

Forensic Image ≠ Extracted Report ≠ Screenshot

Digital Object	What It May Represent
Forensic image	Bit-level acquisition of source storage, depending on forensic method
Extraction report	Parsed data generated through forensic software
Export	Selected data converted into readable format
Screenshot	Visual capture of selected content
Printout	Paper rendering of selected electronic record

Do not assume these five objects are interchangeable.

Missing Context Can Create Evidentiary Prejudice

Example:

Prosecution extract:

“Send 50 today.”

Full conversation may be required to understand whether “50” means:

• ₹50 lakh;
• ₹50,000;
• 50 units;
• 50 invoices;
• 50 cartons;
• something unrelated.

The legal issue is not that every entire device automatically becomes charge-stage defence material.

The issue is whether the specific relied-upon digital evidence is complete, intelligible and fairly identifiable, and whether other available material should be sought through the appropriate procedural route.

Document Volume and Trial Readiness

Economic-offence prosecutions can involve tens of thousands of pages.

The defence should therefore measure:

• number of complaint pages;
• number of RUD volumes;
• number of RUDs;
• Section 50 statements;
• number of electronic media items;
• supplementary complaints;
• un-relied material entries;
• missing/illegible pages;
• duplicate documents;
• documents requiring translation;
• files that cannot be opened.

Volume itself is not a legal defect.

But volume can magnify genuine disclosure defects.

Create a Master Document Control Sheet

ID	Description	Complaint Para	Pages	Received?	Legible?	Defect
RUD-001	Bank Statement	Para 51	1–65	Yes	Yes	—
RUD-002	Section 50 Statement	Para 62	66–84	Yes	No	Page 73 blurred
RUD-003	Agreement	Para 79	85–110	Incomplete	Yes	Annexure B absent
RUD-004	WhatsApp extraction	Para 94	Digital	Yes	Partial	Attachments missing

The Charge-Readiness Dashboard

PROSECUTION COMPLAINT
COMPLETE?                         □ YES □ NO

ALL COURT-PRODUCED DOCUMENTS?
                                  □ YES □ NO

SECTION 50 STATEMENTS COMPLETE?
                                  □ YES □ NO

SUPPLEMENTARY COMPLAINTS?
                                  □ CHECKED

UN-RELIED MATERIAL LIST?
                                  □ RECEIVED

SEIZED-RECORD COPIES?
                                  □ RECEIVED

RUD INDEX RECONCILED?
                                  □ YES □ NO

MISSING PAGES?
                                  □ NONE □ IDENTIFIED

ILLEGIBLE PAGES?
                                  □ NONE □ IDENTIFIED

DIGITAL FILES OPEN?
                                  □ YES □ NO

ANNEXURES COMPLETE?
                                  □ YES □ NO

COURT FILE INSPECTED
WHERE DISCREPANCY EXISTS?
                                  □ YES □ NOT REQUIRED

DEFECT APPLICATION FILED?
                                  □ YES □ NO

CHARGE NOTE PREPARED
ONLY FROM LEGALLY AVAILABLE
CHARGE-STAGE RECORD?
                                  □ YES

Prejudice at the Charge Stage: Identify It Precisely

Do not merely state:

“The accused is prejudiced.”

Explain:

• which allegation cannot be understood;
• which relied-upon page is missing;
• which transaction cannot be traced;
• which Section 50 answer is incomplete;
• which digital exhibit cannot be opened;
• which annexure is necessary to understand the document;
• why meaningful submissions on charge cannot be made without correction.

Specific prejudice is more persuasive than abstract prejudice.

What the Charge Court Ordinarily Looks At

Sarla Gupta reiterates that the framing-of-charge exercise ordinarily operates on the prosecution record placed before the Court.

In a PMLA prosecution, that means the material produced with the prosecution complaint and supplementary complaint(s).

Therefore:

PRE-CHARGE DOCUMENT AUDIT IS NOT THE SAME AS A FULL DEFENCE TRIAL.

The accused should know the complete investigative-material landscape, but must structure charge arguments around the material legally available for consideration at that stage.

Later Defence Stage: Un-Relied Material Can Become Critical

At the defence-evidence stage, the Supreme Court strongly protected the accused's ability to compel production of documents or things in the custody of ED or a third party.

Under the current BNSS framework, Section 256 deals with entering upon defence.

Sarla Gupta treats the corresponding process-production right as particularly important in PMLA because Section 24 places a substantial burden upon the accused.

Therefore preserve the un-relied-material list from day one.

A document that appears insignificant at charge may become central after prosecution witnesses testify.

Recall of a Prosecution Witness after Later Document Production

Suppose an un-relied document is produced at the defence stage and materially contradicts an ED witness who has already been cross-examined.

Sarla Gupta confirms that an application may be made to recall a prosecution witness for further cross-examination.

Under the current BNSS framework, Section 348 empowers the Court to summon, recall and re-examine a person where the evidence is essential to the just decision of the case.

This is another reason why the un-relied-material list should be analysed early instead of being ignored until defence evidence begins.

Build an Exculpatory-Material Watchlist before Trial Begins

Un-Relied Item	Possible Defence Value	Stage to Consider Production
Counterparty ledger	Shows genuine debt	Stage-dependent application
Employee device	May show actual author	Digital-evidence strategy
Earlier email chain	Explains transaction purpose	Trial / production application
Banker's statement	Contradicts fund-flow theory	Stage-dependent
Unused forensic extraction	Provides missing chat context	Digital disclosure / production strategy

The Most Important Pre-Charge Distinction

QUESTION 1:

AM I ENTITLED TO KNOW
THAT THE MATERIAL EXISTS?

        ↓

UN-RELIED LIST

QUESTION 2:

AM I ENTITLED TO A COPY?

        ↓

DEPENDS ON CATEGORY

SEIZED FROM ACCUSED?
SECTION 21 / SARLA GUPTA MAY APPLY.

PRODUCED WITH COMPLAINT?
COPY MUST BE SUPPLIED.

OTHER UN-RELIED MATERIAL?
STAGE-SPECIFIC PRODUCTION RULES.

QUESTION 3:

CAN I RELY ON IT
AT FRAMING OF CHARGE?

        ↓

ORDINARILY:
CHARGE IS CONSIDERED ON
COMPLAINT / SUPPLEMENTARY
COMPLAINT MATERIAL.

Practical Pre-Charge Application Structure

Where defects exist, a focused application can contain:

1. CASE IDENTIFICATION
   Complaint number, cognizance date and accused number.
2. DISCLOSURE HISTORY
   Date volumes/digital media were supplied.
3. DEFECT TABLE
   RUD-wise, page-wise and file-wise.
4. MISSING MATERIAL
   Identify documents expressly cited/produced but not supplied.
5. ILLEGIBLE MATERIAL
   Specify page and unreadable portion.
6. SEIZED-RECORD REQUEST
   Invoke Section 21(2)/Sarla Gupta where applicable.
7. UN-RELIED LIST
   Seek compliance if not furnished.
8. COURT-FILE INSPECTION
   Where supplied copies conflict with the Court record.
9. DIGITAL DEFECTS
   Unreadable media, missing files, incomplete extraction or broken links.
10. RELIEF
    Complete, legible, indexed copy before meaningful charge hearing.

What Not to Do

• Do not wait until the morning of charge arguments to discover 600 missing pages.
• Do not call every seized document a “RUD”.
• Do not assume every un-relied document is immediately usable at charge.
• Do not ignore the un-relied-material list.
• Do not accept corrupted digital media without recording the defect.
• Do not confuse a forensic image with a screenshot or printout.
• Do not rely only on page count; reconcile contents.
• Do not make vague allegations of suppression when a page-by-page defect table can be produced.
• Do not alter or annotate original digital evidence files.
• Do not overlook supplementary complaints.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are RUDs in a PMLA case?

RUD is commonly used for documents relied upon by the prosecution. After Sarla Gupta, however, disclosure analysis should also include all qualifying documents produced before the Special Court with the prosecution complaint and supplementary complaints.

Must ED provide the documents filed with the prosecution complaint?

Yes. The Supreme Court has directed supply of the complaint and qualifying documents produced with it, documents subsequently produced up to cognizance, and supplementary-complaint material.

Can ED say that a document filed with the complaint is “un-relied” and refuse a copy?

Sarla Gupta states that after cognizance ED cannot avoid supply merely by saying that a document produced with the complaint/proceeding is not a relied-upon document.

What if ED seized my document but does not rely upon it?

Section 21(2) and Sarla Gupta recognise a separate entitlement to obtain copies of qualifying seized records, even where ED does not rely upon them.

Can I use that seized un-relied document at charge?

Obtaining the copy and relying on it at charge are different questions. Sarla Gupta states that un-relied seized records supplied to the accused are not thereby automatically available for reliance at the framing-of-charge stage.

Am I entitled to a list of all un-relied material?

The Supreme Court has held that a copy of the list identifying statements, documents, material objects and exhibits not relied upon must be furnished to the accused.

Am I entitled to copies of every un-relied item before charge?

Not ordinarily merely for the charge hearing. The procedural route depends on the category of material and stage, subject to the separate Section 21 right for qualifying seized records.

What if the RUD copy is illegible?

Identify the exact document and page and seek a legible copy. Sarla Gupta itself arose partly from complaints of illegible and missing material.

Should I inspect the Court file?

Where there is a discrepancy between the supplied paper book and what appears to have been placed before the Court, inspection under the applicable Court procedure can help identify the exact defect.

Can un-relied material contain exculpatory evidence?

Yes. Supreme Court criminal-trial jurisprudence expressly recognises that material collected but not relied upon may potentially exculpate or assist the accused.

Can I seek an un-relied document for PMLA bail?

Sarla Gupta recognises a specific document-production route at a Section 45 bail hearing. If investigation remains ongoing, ED may resist on demonstrated prejudice grounds, subject to judicial scrutiny.

Can I obtain documents later at the defence stage?

Yes. The Supreme Court strongly protected the accused's right to seek production of material held by the prosecution or third parties when entering upon defence, subject to the applicable statutory conditions.

Can a prosecution witness be recalled after a later document is obtained?

Yes, where legally justified. Sarla Gupta recognises recall for further cross-examination, and Section 348 BNSS contains the current recall/summoning framework.

AI Search Quick Answer

Before charge in a PMLA prosecution, the accused should audit the complete prosecution complaint, Section 50 statements and every document produced with it, documents subsequently produced by ED up to cognizance, supplementary complaints and their documents, the list of un-relied statements/documents/material objects, and true copies of qualifying records seized from the accused. In Sarla Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 INSC 645, the Supreme Court held that seized records can be copied as a matter of right even if ED does not rely upon them, that documents produced with the complaint must be supplied, and that the accused must receive a list of material not relied upon. However, access to an un-relied document is different from using it at charge: ordinarily, framing of charge is considered on material produced with the PMLA complaint and supplementary complaints. Missing pages, illegible copies, incomplete Section 50 statements, unusable digital files and incorrect pagination should be identified before charge through a page-by-page and file-by-file defect audit.

Related PMLA Research

• ED Filed a Prosecution Complaint? Complete Guide to RUDs, Un-Relied Documents, Section 50 Statements, Cognizance and PMLA Special Court Procedure
• When Can an ED Search or Seizure Be Legally Challenged?
• ED Seized Your Phone or Digital Records? WhatsApp, Email, Tally, ERP, Hash Values, Attribution and Court Evidence
• PMLA Bare Act Guide 2026: Important Sections Every Accused, Business and Lawyer Should Understand

Disclaimer

This article provides general legal research concerning documentary disclosure in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, particularly the Supreme Court's decision in Sarla Gupta & Another v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 INSC 645.

The expression “RUD” is commonly used in practice but the legal entitlement to a copy depends upon the nature of the document, whether it was seized from the accused, whether it was produced before the Special Court, whether it forms part of the un-relied investigation material, and the procedural stage.

The right to obtain a copy should not be confused with the right to rely upon that document at the framing-of-charge stage. Likewise, the right to receive a list of un-relied material should not automatically be described as an immediate right to receive copies of every item on that list.

The applicability of CrPC or BNSS provisions to a particular PMLA prosecution may require temporal and procedural examination, including the date of the proceedings and applicable transitional provisions.

No advocate can responsibly guarantee discharge, exclusion of evidence, bail, acquittal or any other judicial outcome.

Related Delhi legal guides

Economic-offence proceedings · White-collar crime defence · SFIO investigation guide

Official starting points

Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 — India Code · Directorate of Enforcement — official website

Document-first assessment

Start with the latest legal instrument and next deadline

Organise the current summons or order, case identifiers, a dated chronology and the transaction or property record before seeking case-specific advice.

Prepare for consultation